Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Several nonprofit organizations and local governments received federal grants from agencies including the Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Agriculture, and Department of Transportation. These grants were funded under statutes such as the Inflation Reduction Act, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and the American Rescue Plan Act. In early 2025, President Donald Trump issued executive orders directing federal agencies to pause, review, and terminate certain grant programs—including those related to environmental justice, equity, and efficiency—based on new administration priorities. Agencies subsequently suspended or terminated various grants, prompting the plaintiffs to file suit.The U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina reviewed the case. It held that it had jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and issued a permanent injunction requiring the government to restore funding for 32 of the grants. The court also granted a preliminary injunction on the plaintiffs’ separation of powers and ultra vires claims, enjoining the government from further freezing or terminating those grants. The government appealed, and the Fourth Circuit stayed the injunctions pending appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found that the district court abused its discretion in issuing both injunctions. The Fourth Circuit held that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the APA claims because they were essentially contractual, and thus subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act. With respect to the nonstatutory review claims, the Fourth Circuit ruled that the plaintiffs’ constitutional arguments were in substance statutory and failed to meet the strict standards for ultra vires review, since no specific statute prohibited the government’s actions. The court vacated the district court’s orders and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "The Sustainability Institute v. Trump" on Justia Law

The dispute centers around an attempted annexation by the City of North Charleston of a one-acre parcel located near Highway 61 and the Ashley River. This parcel, purchased by North Charleston in 2017, is situated on the southwest side of Highway 61 and separated from both the highway and North Charleston’s existing city limits by a narrow strip of land owned by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. That narrow strip has been part of the City of Charleston since its annexation in 2005. The annexation ordinance at issue included 62 square feet of the National Trust’s strip—land within Charleston’s city limits—in its property description.The National Trust and the City of Charleston challenged the validity of North Charleston’s annexation ordinance, arguing that the parcel was not “adjacent” to North Charleston’s existing city limits as required by section 5-3-100 of the South Carolina Code. The Circuit Court for Charleston County dismissed the lawsuit, holding that neither the National Trust nor Charleston had standing to contest the annexation, but also found in the alternative that, if standing existed, the annexation was invalid because the parcel was not adjacent to North Charleston’s city limits. On appeal, the South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal for lack of standing and declined to reach the merits of the annexation’s validity.The Supreme Court of South Carolina granted review and held that both the National Trust and the City of Charleston had standing to challenge the annexation. The Court further affirmed the circuit court’s alternative ruling that North Charleston’s annexation was invalid because the parcel was not “adjacent” to its city limits, as required under state law. Thus, the decision of the court of appeals was reversed in part and affirmed in part. View "National Trust for Historic Preservation v. City of North Charleston" on Justia Law

A water authority was originally created by a single municipality to serve local water needs but over time expanded its service area to include numerous communities in two counties. The authority’s board was initially appointed solely by the founding municipality. In response to changes in the demographics of its customer base, the Pennsylvania General Assembly enacted a statutory amendment requiring equal board representation for the founding municipality and the two counties served. After the restructured board rejected a purchase offer from a private company, the authority attempted to transfer its assets into a trust. The founding municipality and the private bidder objected, asserting the municipality retained sole statutory power to convey the authority’s assets.The Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, Orphans’ Division, denied motions by the municipality and the private bidder for judgment on the pleadings in both the trust and declaratory judgment actions. The court held that any conveyance of the authority’s assets under the Municipality Authorities Act required the unanimous consent of the governing bodies now represented on the authority’s board. On appeal, the Commonwealth Court reversed, finding that the statutory change to board composition did not alter the founding municipality’s unilateral power to convey assets under the Act.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the Commonwealth Court’s decision. It held that the plain text of the relevant statute does not grant perpetual unilateral conveyance authority to the founding municipality, especially after legislative restructuring of the board. The court found that the right to effect a conveyance now rests collectively with the three municipalities represented on the board. The Supreme Court reversed the Commonwealth Court’s decision and remanded for further proceedings. View "In Re: Chester Water Authority Trust" on Justia Law

This case concerns the Transportation Security Administration’s issuance of an emergency amendment that required certain airport operators to incorporate specific cybersecurity measures and controls into their airport security programs. The amendment, issued in March 2023, responded to increasing cyber threats to the aviation sector, including ransomware and foreign cyberattacks. Under the amendment, airports were required to identify critical systems, submit a cybersecurity implementation plan, and assess their effectiveness annually. The Spokane Airport Board, which operates Spokane International Airport, objected to the amendment on both procedural and substantive grounds.After the amendment was issued, the Spokane Airport Board petitioned the TSA for reconsideration, raising various objections. The TSA denied these petitions, upholding the emergency amendment. Spokane then filed a timely petition for review with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, as provided by statute.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the TSA’s order under the standards of the Administrative Procedure Act, specifically considering whether it was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review arguments not properly raised before the TSA, as required by statute. The court found that the objections Spokane did properly exhaust were meritless. It concluded that the TSA possesses broad statutory authority to regulate aviation security—including cybersecurity—in response to threats. The court also found that the emergency amendment was consistent with TSA regulations and was not arbitrary or capricious. Accordingly, the court denied Spokane’s petition for review, leaving the TSA’s emergency cybersecurity amendment in effect. View "Spokane Airport Board v. TSA" on Justia Law

More than a decade ago, Peconic Bay Medical Center submitted an Adverse Action Report (AAR) to the National Practitioner Data Bank regarding Dr. John Doe. Dr. Doe made repeated efforts to have the AAR removed, including seeking review from the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and filing federal lawsuits in Washington, D.C. These lawsuits were unsuccessful, with courts such as the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejecting his claims. During the course of litigation, Dr. Doe obtained documents in discovery that he believed supported his renewed request for reconsideration to HHS regarding the AAR.HHS denied Dr. Doe’s request for reconsideration, stating that he was “not eligible for additional administrative review of the Report.” Dr. Doe then filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging, among other things, that HHS’s denial violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The district court dismissed Dr. Doe’s APA claim, concluding that the denial of reconsideration was unreviewable because Dr. Doe had not presented new evidence.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that HHS violated the Chenery principle by changing its rationale for denying reconsideration during the litigation. The Fifth Circuit held that judicial review of agency action must be based solely on the grounds set forth by the agency at the time of its decision. Because HHS’s stated reason was incorrect—Dr. Doe was eligible for reconsideration under department guidance—the appellate court reversed the district court’s dismissal of Dr. Doe’s APA claim and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Doe v. Department of Health and Human Services" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs in this case are the sons of Roberto Clemente, a renowned Puerto Rican baseball player, and two corporations they control. The dispute centers on the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico’s use of Clemente’s name and image on commemorative license plates and vehicle registration tags. Proceeds from these items were designated to fund a new “Roberto Clemente Sports District,” a public project that would replace an earlier initiative, Ciudad Deportiva, originally founded by Clemente. The plaintiffs allege that they hold trademark rights in Clemente’s name and that the Commonwealth’s actions were unauthorized and caused public confusion, with many mistakenly believing the Clemente family benefited financially from the program.The plaintiffs brought suit in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico against the Commonwealth, several high-ranking officials, and the Puerto Rico Convention Center District Authority. Their claims included trademark infringement, false association, false advertising, and trademark dilution under the Lanham Act, as well as a takings claim under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Commonwealth and the Authority moved to dismiss, arguing sovereign and qualified immunity and failure to state a claim. The district court granted both motions, dismissing all federal claims on immunity and merits grounds, and declined to exercise jurisdiction over non-federal claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The court affirmed the dismissal of all claims against the Authority and all claims against the Commonwealth and its officials in their official capacities. It also affirmed dismissal of the false advertising and takings claims. However, the court vacated the dismissal of the Lanham Act claims for trademark infringement, false endorsement, and dilution against the Commonwealth officials in their personal capacities, holding those claims were plausibly alleged and not barred by qualified immunity at this stage, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Clemente Properties, Inc. v. Pierluisi-Urrutia" on Justia Law

Diamond Sands Apartments, LLC owns and operates a 360-unit apartment complex in Las Vegas, Nevada, where units are leased for long-term stays under agreements prohibiting unauthorized subletting. Clark County received numerous complaints regarding short-term rentals in certain units, which included disturbances such as loud parties. The County investigated and verified that some units were being rented for short-term stays through Airbnb. After notifying Diamond Sands of the violations and conducting follow-up inspections, the County issued two administrative citations assessing $2,000 fines for each violation, as permitted under its ordinance, which prohibits unauthorized short-term rentals and allows for fines between $1,000 and $10,000 per violation.Diamond Sands filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, raising facial and as-applied challenges to the County’s ordinance under the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause. The company sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that the ordinance unconstitutionally penalized property owners for short-term rental activity conducted by tenants. The district court denied Diamond Sands’ motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the fines were not grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the violations and that Diamond Sands had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the denial of the preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion and underlying legal issues de novo. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion, finding that Diamond Sands bore some culpability due to its knowledge and failure to prevent ongoing violations. The fines imposed were at the low end of the authorized range, and the ordinance aimed to deter harm to residents. The court also determined that Diamond Sands had not shown the ordinance was unconstitutional in every application. Therefore, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction. View "DIAMOND SANDS APARTMENTS, LLC V. CLARK COUNTY NEVADA" on Justia Law

Two U.S. citizens petitioned for immigrant visas on behalf of their relatives. After each relative interviewed with a consular officer, their visa applications were placed in administrative processing, requiring additional information. Both applicants submitted the required information but experienced lengthy delays. Eventually, after sixteen months, one applicant and his spouse filed a complaint alleging unreasonable delay; the other applicant and his son did the same after seven months. Both sought to compel the Department of State to adjudicate the applications.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed both complaints for failure to state a claim. The court applied factors from Telecommunications Research & Action Center v. FCC to determine whether there had been an unreasonable delay and ruled that neither complaint met the standard. The applicants appealed the dismissals.While the appeals were pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the Department of State finished processing the applications: one applicant received his visa and entered the United States, while the other was refused a visa due to inadmissibility for terrorist activities, with no waiver available. The Court of Appeals held that these events rendered both appeals moot, as no effectual relief could be provided. The court found that neither of the recognized exceptions to the mootness doctrine—voluntary cessation or “capable of repetition yet evading review”—applied. The court vacated the judgments of the district court and remanded with instructions to dismiss the cases as moot. The court also declined the appellants’ request to create a new exception to mootness for unreasonable delay claims. View "Mehneh v. Rubio" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs alleged that the City of Berkeley violated the Ralph M. Brown Act during three city council meetings in late 2023 and early 2024. At each meeting, disruptions from attendees prevented the council from conducting business. The mayor determined that order could not be restored by removing disruptive individuals but did not order the meeting room cleared. Instead, the meetings were recessed and reconvened in a different, smaller room. The press was allowed to attend in person, while the public could join by video, but the new location could not accommodate all nondisruptive members of the public. No attempt was made to restore order by removing disruptive individuals, nor was the meeting room ordered cleared.The Alameda County Superior Court sustained the defendants’ demurrer without leave to amend, holding that section 54957.9 of the Brown Act does not require the city council to first attempt to remove disruptive individuals before determining that order cannot be restored. The trial court further found that the city council complied with the statute by recessing and reconvening the meetings in a different room with press attendance. The case was dismissed with prejudice, and plaintiffs appealed.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. It held that, under section 54957.9, a legislative body may order the meeting room cleared and continue in session, but the statute does not authorize relocating the meeting to another room. The court found that recessing and reconvening in a new location is not equivalent to ordering the original meeting room cleared. Plaintiffs stated a claim for relief by alleging that the city council failed to order the meeting room cleared and instead moved the meetings. The judgment was reversed. View "Berkeley People's Alliance v. City of Berkeley" on Justia Law

The case concerns a dispute between a nonprofit legal services organization and a city over the city's handling of requests for public records related to law enforcement activities. The nonprofit submitted several requests seeking information and body-worn camera footage from police encounters with homeless individuals. The city released some records but withheld others, invoking statutory exemptions for law enforcement investigations. The nonprofit later learned that some older bodycam footage had been destroyed pursuant to the city's retention policy, which required footage to be kept for only one year. This prompted the nonprofit to file suit, alleging inadequate searches, improper withholding, untimely responses, and destruction of records while requests were pending.Reviewing the matter, the Santa Clara County Superior Court granted partial declaratory relief, finding the city violated the California Public Records Act (CPRA) in its response to certain requests, but declined to issue a writ of mandate or find a records retention requirement under the CPRA. The Sixth Appellate District Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding the matter moot because all responsive, nonexempt records had been disclosed, and further concluding that the CPRA does not require agencies to preserve records withheld as exempt for three years after an exemption is claimed.The California Supreme Court reviewed two key issues. First, it held that declaratory relief under the CPRA is available even when all existing responsive, nonexempt records have been disclosed, at least where such relief would resolve ongoing disputes that could affect future records requests or conduct. Second, the court affirmed that the CPRA does not impose a duty on public agencies to preserve documents responsive to public records requests that have been withheld as exempt, rejecting the argument for a three-year retention period. The judgment was reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings consistent with these holdings. View "City of Gilroy v. Superior Court" on Justia Law